john@staustell wrote:Slim wrote:I think there is one thing we could learn from the Americans, it's called the "salary cap". Those two words are better financial FAIR play than anything UEFA have proposed so far.
Yeah and all draft players each summer. Great.
Does this mean you are one that prefers the best teams dominating then or are at least in favour of players' right to earn as much as the market dictates, rather than some arbitrary figure that limits this (I actually am in the latter camp)?
You do realise that system, like the "salary cap," is actually designed to keep the leagues competitive (as well as, or more cynically, just make sure all owners can earn as much as any other as they can, while appeasing fans of less rich clubs), by helping lower performing clubs to add talent even if they play on a smaller club or in a smaller market.
I am more of a supporter of players getting as much as they can in their careers, and care less what fans want if it hurts them. This is since the owners make so much, off of the performance of uniquely talented individuals with limited years to earn due to age, and if anything goes wrong as a player you are quickly discarded. As a result I am generally against such limitations, but in America it is more accepted perhaps because of our attitudes towards unions and workers rights. Since the 1980s we tend to blame workers for everything and have targeted workers unions/rights when it interferes with the masses consumption or corporate profits to the point of unions barely existing and generally unpopular.
The draft system also incentivises bad play by teams, particularly in sport where adding one player can transform a team instantly (basketball, American football - if you draft a quarterback, especially). Baseball does not have these limitations, as it has the strongest players union -- because they were actually the sport where a players union first took a historic stand against owners and won -- so you see a model more similar to international football where it's a players' market and rich teams have an advantage, generally. They have a draft, but it would be like drafting players for the under 18s or Reserves/EDS. They are less likely to live up to potential, almost always playing in lower leagues for years first, compared to American football or basketball players, who often go right into the first teams after being drafted.
Even as you jest, a draft wouldn't work anyway because with football there are too many top leagues. So the best young player out of, say Brazil, would probably be drafted to play in multiple nations' leagues. It would make no sense. In American sport with draft systems those sports are the top leagues by a good margin, so all of the best players want to play in the NFL, NBA, NHL or MLB. MLS has a draft, but that tends to focus on American youth who are leftover from the best, because the real best discovered young enough who are smart go abroad to develop, like 17 year old Christian Pulisic, who plays for Dortmund. Basketball has a little lure for playing internationally, and some young players have went to Europe, but that's rare (we are just as bad, and arguably worse, than English youth with being willing to live abroad where English is not the native language).
Anyway, I know it's easy to mock us Yanks at times, and I can surely criticise aspects raised, no problem, but let's have a fair conversation about some aspects, as "someone else" (Doomie - don't want to write my name?) alluded to in an earlier post. The NFL is the worst league for players, btw, who can get cut without earning their wages unlike other professional sports, and the risk for life threatening injury is extremely high (now with evidence about 1 out of 3 players risking development of CTE/serious brain trauma over their lives). I actually predict the sport to decline over time as a result. I'd never want my children to play it seriously.